Jupiter Research Puts Hype Over Research
Last Friday, TVPredictions.com was the first to report that Jupiter Research had purposely exaggerated an estimate of how often DVR owners skip commercials during recorded programming.
Jupiter, a well-known New York-based research firm, issued a press release last week saying it conducted a study that found that DVR ad-skipping could threaten up to $8 billion in advertising. However, TVPredictions.com discovered that Jupiter's $8 billion figure was based on a "worst case scenario" -- if DVR owners who skip ads skip them 100 percent of the time.
Despite issuing the press release with the $8 billion estimate in the headline, Jupiter's Todd Chanko, the study's author, admitted to TVPredictions.com that the "100 percent of the time" scenario was not likely or realistic.
I wrote Friday that it appeared that Jupiter was attempting to hype the study's results to generate maximum publicity, which in turn would lead to increased sales of its expensive research studies. Multichannel News is one of many online publications that have reported on the Jupiter DVR study without questioning its findings or methodology.
And now there's evidence that Jupiter's effort to exaggerate the study's conclusions to generate publicity went even further than first reported.
Shortly after TVPredictions.com published its article on Friday, David Card, a Jupiter senior analyst, posted an item about the article on his blog at JupiterResearch.com under the headline: "Busted!" (You have to admire the candor of the headline.)
"Phillip Swann takes us to task for hyping a worst-case scenario on ad-skipping by DVR users. It's called marketing, Swannee (sic)," Card wrote. "But he makes some good points. And I concede our report is more cautious than our press release."
But then Card makes an admission that is quite startling.
Last week, Jupiter's Chanko told me that the research firm did not ask the DVR ad skippers how often they skip ads. Consequently, it was not unfair, he said, to pose the possibility that they would skip them "all the time."
However, Card writes in his blog that Jupiter actually did ask DVR ad-skippers how often they skip.
Did they skip them 100 percent of the time, as the Jupiter headline suggested?
No, Card says, the number of DVR ad skippers who say they skip them "all the time" was just 12 percent.
12 percent, not 100 percent.
In other words, Jupiter issued a press release suggesting that $8 billion in advertising could be at risk when it knew that its own study found that the number was dramatically lower.
Card may call that "marketing," but I think reasonable people would call it something else.
To see last Friday's article on Jupiter's DVR study, click Here
To get more news and analysis on TV technology, click TVPredictions.com
Jupiter, a well-known New York-based research firm, issued a press release last week saying it conducted a study that found that DVR ad-skipping could threaten up to $8 billion in advertising. However, TVPredictions.com discovered that Jupiter's $8 billion figure was based on a "worst case scenario" -- if DVR owners who skip ads skip them 100 percent of the time.
Despite issuing the press release with the $8 billion estimate in the headline, Jupiter's Todd Chanko, the study's author, admitted to TVPredictions.com that the "100 percent of the time" scenario was not likely or realistic.
I wrote Friday that it appeared that Jupiter was attempting to hype the study's results to generate maximum publicity, which in turn would lead to increased sales of its expensive research studies. Multichannel News is one of many online publications that have reported on the Jupiter DVR study without questioning its findings or methodology.
And now there's evidence that Jupiter's effort to exaggerate the study's conclusions to generate publicity went even further than first reported.
Shortly after TVPredictions.com published its article on Friday, David Card, a Jupiter senior analyst, posted an item about the article on his blog at JupiterResearch.com under the headline: "Busted!" (You have to admire the candor of the headline.)
"Phillip Swann takes us to task for hyping a worst-case scenario on ad-skipping by DVR users. It's called marketing, Swannee (sic)," Card wrote. "But he makes some good points. And I concede our report is more cautious than our press release."
But then Card makes an admission that is quite startling.
Last week, Jupiter's Chanko told me that the research firm did not ask the DVR ad skippers how often they skip ads. Consequently, it was not unfair, he said, to pose the possibility that they would skip them "all the time."
However, Card writes in his blog that Jupiter actually did ask DVR ad-skippers how often they skip.
Did they skip them 100 percent of the time, as the Jupiter headline suggested?
No, Card says, the number of DVR ad skippers who say they skip them "all the time" was just 12 percent.
12 percent, not 100 percent.
In other words, Jupiter issued a press release suggesting that $8 billion in advertising could be at risk when it knew that its own study found that the number was dramatically lower.
Card may call that "marketing," but I think reasonable people would call it something else.
To see last Friday's article on Jupiter's DVR study, click Here
To get more news and analysis on TV technology, click TVPredictions.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home